Latest Cases

Damages – Personal injury. The deceased died following a helicopter crash whilst employed on a project by the defendant employer. The deceased's wife brought a claim against the employer. The Queen's Bench Division held that the scope of the defendant employer's duty extended to the charter of the helicopter and the flight, that the duty had been breached and that breach had caused the deceased's death. 

Damages – Quantum – Loss of society. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in an action for damages for loss of society by the family of a 25-year-old man who was fatally injured when hit by a car driven by the defenders' insured on a pedestrian crossing, in which the Lord Ordinary awarded £42,000 to each of the deceased's parents, the court held that none of the criticisms of the Lord Ordinary's approach to the assessment of those awards was well founded, and when regard was had to comparable jury awards, the awards were not manifestly outwith the appropriate range. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling on issues arising out of proceedings between Unicaja Banca SA and Caixabank SA, respectively, and certain of their customers concerning the recovery of unpaid debts arising from mortgage-loan contracts concluded between those parties in the main proceedings. 

Medical Practitioner – Negligence. The claimant had attended at the accident and emergency department of one of the defendant NHS Trust's hospital. The doctor had inserted a cannula in her left arm, even though she had told him that there was a risk of oedema due to a recent procedure that she had undergone. The cannula site became infected, the claimant suffered a fairly serious case of oedema and was left with a permanent disability in her left arm. The county court judge dismissed her claim for clinical negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had failed to take to its logical conclusion his finding that the cannula had been inserted without the claimant's consent. That had been a breach of the doctor's duty of care. The matter would be remitted to resolve issues of causation. 

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The judge and the Court of Appeal of Jamaica refused the appellant Assets Recovery Agency's application for a customer information order (CIO), pursuant to ss 119 to 125 of the Jamaican Proceeds of Crime Act 2007. The Privy Council, in dismissing the Agency's appeal, held that the Court of Appeal's refusal of the CIO had been correct because the flaws in the application had meant that the statutory conditions for making the order had not been made out. However, it had been in error in its ruling on three points of general principle and the correct approach was set out. 

Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – Recovery of information. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion by petitioners who had asked the court to order disclosure of the identity of two users of the respondent's website who, it was averred, posted defamatory matter about them and their guest house, the court concluded that the Lord Ordinary was correct to sustain the respondents' plea of no jurisdiction, as the Scottish courts did not have jurisdiction over the respondents, a company incorporated under the law of Massachusetts who had their principal place of business there, and the clause in the respondents' terms and conditions prorogating the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts applied to the application. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant agreed to grant a lease of a hotel to the first defendant, Travelodge, on the understanding that Travelodge would carry out refurbishment work at the hotel. The Travelodge Group later entered into a company voluntary agreement (CVA), under which the rent for the hotel was reduced. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants claiming, inter alia, that the work had not been fully or properly carried out and seeking damages for loss of rent following the making of the CVA. The first defendant sought summary judgment against the claimant. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed Travelodge's application for summary judgment on the whole claim, but held that claims which were excluded by the terms of the CVA would be struck out. 

Copyright – Infringement. The claimant brought proceedings alleging copying of its training manual used by those who taught techniques for physical restraint. It alleged that the first defendant had infringed certain copyright works by reason of the creation of its own manual. The alleged copyright works included photographs, literary and dramatic works. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held, inter alia, that, on the evidence, the first defendant had not at any stage been granted a licence to copy any of the photographs and, whenever it had done so, it had infringed the claimant's copyright. However, the claimant's case regarding literary and dramatic works failed. 

Housing – Homeless person. The local authority had refused a resident's application for housing on the basis that she was not homeless as, while she had suffered obvious emotional and other upset, her neighbour's misbehaviour and harassment fell short of actual violence or threats of violence that were likely to be carried out and it would not be unreasonable for her to continue to occupy the property in which she lived. The county court judge quashed the authority's decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the phrase 'other violence' in s 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 covered not only physical violence (actual or threatened) but other threatening or intimidating behaviour or abuse, if of such seriousness that it might give rise to psychological harm. The authority's appeal was dismissed with the result that it had to reconsider its decision. 

Firearms – Possession. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction for possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to s 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, held, among other things, that the judge had been plainly right to find that there was a case to answer.